JWKX and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review)

[2021] AATA 1463

JWKX and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review) [2021] AATA 1463 (25 May 2021)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2020/2794

Re:JWKX

APPLICANT

AndChild Support Registrar

RESPONDENT

AndNDWG

OTHER PARTY

DECISION

Tribunal:Chris Puplick AM, Senior Member

Date:25 May 2021

Place:Sydney

The decision under review is affirmed.

...................................[sgd]...................................

Chris Puplick AM, Senior Member

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been removed from this decision and replaced with generic information so as not to identify involved individuals as required by subsections 16(2AB)–16(2AC) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth).

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – percentage of care – appropriate percentage of care between applicant and other party for an appropriate care period – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 2A(b)

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) s 54A, 54F, 54G and 54H

Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth) s 87AA(1)(b)

CASES

Browne v Dunn [1893] 6 R 67

Child Support Registrar v DNQY & Anor (VID518/2020)

Polec and Staker and Anor (2011) 253 FLR 339

Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31

REASONS FOR DECISION

Chris Puplick AM, Senior Member

25 May 2021

BACKGROUND

1. JWKX and NDWG are, respectively, the mother and father of Child A (now aged 5 years) who is the subject of an arrangement for the provision of child care support.

2. It appears that the couple established their relationship sometime in 2014, that the Child was born in 2015 and that the couple separated in 2017. They lived initially on the Gold Coast before moving to the Coffs Harbour (NSW) district.

3. On 24 April 2020 the Social Services and Child Support Division of this Tribunal (AAT1) made a determination that child care responsibilities fell equally between the parties and that, as a result, it should be determined that each had 50% care of the Child for the purposes of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) (the Act) from 9 November 2018.[1]

   [1] Tribunal documents (T-documents) at 12-16.

4. On 12 May 2020 JWKX applied to this Tribunal for a review of the AAT1 decision, claiming that the 50%/50% assessment was incorrect. The matter was heard by this Tribunal on 19 April 2021 using the Microsoft Teams platform in accordance with the Tribunal’s COVID-19 protocols.

   THE HEARING AND POST-HEARING SUBMISSIONS

5. On 5 January 2021 and 5 March 2021 this Tribunal issued Directions to the parties to provide further evidentiary material to the Tribunal for its consideration. None was forthcoming from either JWKX or NDWG so the Tribunal was left to rely on the written evidence before the AAT1 without anything being added, with the exception of the Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions. Both parties were given an opportunity to indicate their availability to participate in a Tribunal hearing in the period April to June 2021.

6. Both parties were notified on 6 April 2021 that the Tribunal would hear their matter on 19 April 2021 and this written notification was followed-up verbally by the Tribunal. In the event NDWG (the father) indicated that he would not attend the hearing and he did not do so. However, given the proper notifications had been provided to all parties and that each had ample opportunity to provide written submissions, the Tribunal decided that it would proceed to hear the application in his absence. It took oral evidence from JWKX.

7. The Tribunal was provided with a comprehensive submission on the operations of the Act from the Registrar who took a position of neutrality as between the parties’ claims.

8. At the conclusion of the hearing the Tribunal sought further advice from the Registrar in order to corroborate certain claims made by the parties as to variation in care arrangements. This information, after an extension of time for its completion was granted by the Tribunal was tendered on 7 May 2021 at which stage the Tribunal was satisfied that it could proceed to a determination informed by reliable data as held in the official records of the Registrar.

   HISTORY OF CHILD CARE DETERMINATIONS

9. The arrangements for child care support percentages have varied over time, not always without dispute between the parties.

   ·Child support arrangements were first registered on 3 January 2017.[2]

   [2] T-documents at 192.

   ·From 1 June 2018 until 8 November 2018 the percentage of care was determined as being 86% for the mother (JWKX) and 14% for the father (NDWG).[3]

   ·On 16 November 2018 the mother notified the Child Support Registrar (the Registrar) that the percentage of care for the Child had altered as from 9 November 2018 and should be taken to thereafter be at 72% for herself and 28% for the father.[4]

   ·The Registrar sought confirmation of this arrangement from the father who apparently failed to respond to this request within the time required, leading to the Registrar confirming the 72%/28% determination as from 9 November 2018.[5]

   ·This arrangement remained in place until on 8 August 2019 the father lodged in objection to the care percentage decision on the basis that the parties had not actually followed a “parenting plan” agreed by the parties in August 2018 but rather that the real arrangement for care of the Child had been at the level of 50%/50%.[6]

   ·There is some doubt about the status of this 2018 “parenting plan” which was never formally endorsed by the Court and details of which could not be supplied to the Tribunal in a meaningful form. It appears from the mother’s evidence that this was a plan in writing arising from mediation sessions conducted with the assistance of legal representatives.[7] However, the plan was never before either the Registrar or the Court and there is agreement between the parties that, in any event, its terms were never followed.[8]

   ·The father’s objection was lodged well outside the statutory timeframe provided under the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth)[9] but this is a matter of no moment as the decision was unfavourable to the applying party.

   ·The mother objected to this claim by the father on 21 August 2019 claiming that while there had been a period “May 2019 approx. for… three months” that the father had had 50%/50% care, since that time arrangements had reverted to what it had been before, namely 72%/28%.[10]

   ·On 24 August 2019 the father lodged evidence with the Registrar in support of his claims but this material does not appear to have been before the Objections Officer of the Registrar[11] who on 10 February 2020 disallowed the father’s objections.[12] It should be noted that JWKX was invited to make a submission, or provide evidence for consideration by the Objections Officer, but declined to do so.[13]

   ·Additional evidence revealed by the Registrar in Post-Hearing Submissions indicates that the father contacted Centrelink on both 15 January 2020 and 29 January 2020 stating that he had care of the Child on a 50%/50% basis from November 2018 onwards.[14]

   ·On 17 February 2020 the father applied to the AAT1 for a review of that decision and on 24 April 2020 the AAT1 upheld the father’s application and made a new determination of 50%/50% child care support between the parties from 9 November 2018.[15]

   [3] Ibid at 194.

   [4] Ibid at 31.

   [5] Ibid at 35.

   [6] Ibid at 50.

   [7] Ibid at 58. Confirmed in oral evidence at the Tribunal hearing.

   [8] Ibid at 14. AAT1 decision at [11].

   [9] Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth) s 87AA(1)(b) provides for a 28-day time limit for the lodgement of objections.

   [10] T-documents at 58.

   [11] Ibid at 70.

   [12] Ibid at 68.

   [13] Ibid at 13. AAT1 decision at [7].

   [14] Respondent’s Post-Hearing Submissions (7 May 2021) at [4.4].

   [15] T-documents at 12-16.

   STATUS OF EVIDENCE

10. It is a well-established principle that the Tribunal must make its decisions on the material which is before it at the time of the hearing (or before it makes its decision where later material is submitted), taking into account material which may not have been before the original decision-maker.[16]

    [16] Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31 at [37].

11. Both parties have been singularly unhelpful to decision-makers throughout this process. The mother failed to provide material for consideration by the Objections Officer in August/September 2019; neither party provided any further material for consideration by this Tribunal; the father failed to avail himself of the opportunity to appear in this Tribunal hearing and such material as is available is of poor quality and limited evidentiary value.

12. In effect the Tribunal has to rely upon a series of completing calendars kept in a variety of fashions by each party together with a series of screenshots taken from mobile phone conversations between the parties, many of which are hostile, offensive and vituperative. In relation to the calendars, it should be noted that the AAT1 placed some reliance upon that supplied by the father and that the mother told this Tribunal that she has kept no coherent records of her own which could be considered as evidence.

13. The Tribunal has to make its decision based upon the written evidence which was before the AAT1 to which neither JWKX or NDWG added in subsequent proceedings despite the Tribunal’s invitation to do so. In addition, the Tribunal heard evidence from JWKX which was materially no more than confirmatory of that material and which was not challenged by virtue of NDWG absenting himself from the proceedings.

14. What was forthcoming at the hearing was the evidence of JWKX to the effect that since either December 2020 or January 2021 the couple have reverted to a situation where care for the Child is undertaken on a 50%/50% basis and that, unlike the previous “parenting agreement” the parties are making a conscious effort to adhere to this arrangement.

15. At this stage of the proceedings it appeared that the issue before the Tribunal resolved itself into this: what were the actual parenting arrangements which took place between 9 November 2018 (the date the Registrar was advised of a change in care percentages by the father) and December 2020/January 2021 (the date the Registrar was advised by the mother of a change in care percentages).

16. However, further evidence submitted, at the Tribunal’s request, by the Registrar after the hearing casts matters in a slightly different light. In the first place the Registrar’s records indicate that it was the father, not the mother (as per her evidence to the Tribunal) who advised on 9 March 2021 that a 50%/50% pattern of care had been in place since 6 December 2020; and that several other changes in patterns of care had taken place prior to that date, although none was mentioned by the mother in her oral testimony.[17]

    [17] Respondent’s email to the Tribunal dated 22 April 2021.

17. The mother’s position is that:

    ·From 9 November 2018 until sometime in May 2019 the percentage of care was 72%/28% between the mother/father. This was based on the father having care of the Child for 4 days/nights per fortnight (Wednesday to Sunday every second week).

    ·From May 2019 for a period of approximately 3 months the percentage of care was 50%/50%.

    ·From about August/September 2019 to December 2020/January 2021 the percentage of care reverted to 72%/28% between mother/father, reverting to the 4 days/nights per fortnight arrangement.

18. The father’s position, as stated to and upheld by the AAT1 was that from 9 November 2018 he provided 50%/50% care for the Child. The Tribunal assumes that this remains his position to date and that his claim is that the 50%/50% arrangement genuinely never varied.

    CONSIDERATIONS: JURISDICTIONAL

19. It can be seen from the above narrative that there have been numerous changes in parenting arrangements, some of which have been notified formally to the Registrar and some of which have not.

20. Indeed, the Tribunal notes advice from the Registrar to the effect that it had become aware of “several additional changes in care provided prior to December 2020 which were not referred to by the mother in her oral evidence at the hearing”[18] and about which it was apparently otherwise not aware.

    [18] Ibid.

21. This makes it confusing for the Tribunal to determine which periods of care it should consider in making any determination(s) which might vary those which are, or have been, in place.

22. In its Post-Hearing Submissions the Respondent contends that an original decision-maker has it open to them to make care percentage determinations in respect to multiple care periods, but that the review powers of the Tribunal confine its determination(s) only to those in relation to which “the Registrar or Secretary has been notified or made aware of prior to the making of an objection decision and which were before the objections officer for consideration.”[19]

    [19] Respondent’s Post-Hearing Submissions dated 7 May 2021 at [3.6].

23. The Tribunal accepts that this is a correct definition of its review remit and will proceed further on this basis.

24. It will thus be principally concerned with matters arising from:

    ·the contact made by the father with the Registrar on 8 August 2019 objecting to the 50%/50% decision pertaining since 9 November 2018;

    ·the mother’s advice of 21 August 2019 that for a 3-month period commencing May 2019 care had been 50%/50% between the parents before reverting to a 72%/28% arrangement in her favour; and

    ·the father’s contact with Centrelink of 8 January 2020 to advise that he had had 50% care of the Child from November 2018.

25. The Tribunal must also, of course, take into account relevant material in the Tribunal documents and the evidence, such as it was, given at the hearing.

26. The Tribunal also notes that the Registrar informed it that a matter involving similar although not identical issues was currently before the Federal Court on the basis of an appeal to that court by the Registrar.[20] Very properly, the Registrar put to this Tribunal that it might consider delaying its determination in that matter until the outcomes of the Federal Court proceedings were at hand. The Tribunal has considered this option but determined rather, that in accordance with the Objectives of its own Act, in order to render a decision which is “quick”[21] or timely, it should not delay its determination to a date yet unknown and possibly far off.

    [20] Child Support Registrar v DNYQ & Anor (VID518/2020).

    [21] Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 2A(b).

    CONSIDERATIONS: THE FACTS (AS BEST KNOWN)

27. The AAT1 discussed the quality of the competing calendars of care placed before it by each of the parties and attempted to match these with evidence found in the text messages and screenshots provided. It noted the material provided by the father[22] in this respect and the failure of the mother to effectively contradict it. It then came to the conclusion that it was “marginally satisfied” that the father’s evidence was to be preferred to the mother’s.[23]

    [22] This material included letters of support from his mother and grandmother as to time spent with the Child. T-documents at 63 and 64.

    [23] AAT1 decision at [21], T-documents at 15.

28. The records submitted by the father cover a period from August 2019 to March 2020.[24]

    [24] Ibid at 171-178.

29. It appears that the father accepts that the “parenting plan” provided for a 72%/28% arrangement based upon his care of the Child on the 4 days/nights per fortnight schedule but that this was not adhered to and he provided more care, but was content not to “rock the boat” on this matter until the mother allegedly started to withhold care.[25] The Tribunal notes that in discussions with the Registrar the father has suggested that the percentage of care may in fact have been higher than 50%/50%.[26]

    [25] Ibid at 50-51.

    [26] Ibid at 49.

30. The mother’s claim is that the four days/nights per fortnight was not adhered to, not on the basis that the father had more care, but rather that such arrangements were often cancelled by the father and he had less care. The mother told the Tribunal that she had no idea as to NDWG’s employment but that he was frequently “away” and unable to provide care as arranged. It should be noted that the evidence indicates both that the father did travel away on business necessitating some additional care to be provided by the mother, but that the mother also took time away from their home (Coffs Harbour) to holiday in Sydney leaving the Child with her father for extra periods.

31. It is necessary to examine the exchange of phone messages between the parties as it relates to any discussion between them of a 50%/50% arrangement. As in so many such cases, the exchanges do not make particularly edifying reading. All dates are in the year 2019.[27]

    [27] Ibid at 65-79.

    Mother: Sunday 4 August 3.52 pm

    I’ll have to think about the 50/50 Aswell [sic], I’ve been thinking about it a lot lately, just not sure.

    Father: Sunday 4 August 3.52 pm

    And what exactly are you not sure about? We do 50/50 anyway it just needs to be official.

    Mother: Sunday 4 August 3.52 pm

    What’s it got to be official for it’s not like you pay child support. Or are you just worried about getting more money from Centrelink.

    Father: Sunday 4 August 3.52 pm

    Yes I do? And I pay too much because your [sic] always lyeing [sic] to them. And it has to be official because that’s WHATS HAPPENING. How scat are you I don’t get a cent off Centrelink for anything, give me 5 reasons you don’t want to change the parental plan. Tryna [sic] give your problems to me your [sic] the only one worried about Centrelink money there’s no other reason you wouldn’t tell them the truth. It said our parental plan would be revised 6 months from mediation.

    Mother: Sunday 4 August 3.52 pm

    You don’t fucking pay any child support actually so don’t even fucking go there. Fuck off im [sic] done with this conversation you’ve pissed me the fuck off.

    Mother: (undated)

    I have no idea why you are trying to fuck me over for 50/50 is never going to happen, I let you have her whenever you want I never fucking say no to you, because I’m trying to do the right thing by [the Child]… And I am not budging with the parenting plan like I said 50/50 is never going to happen.  

    Father: Sunday 11 August 1.20 pm

    … first of all I’m not trying to fuck you over at all? It’s not fucking you over it’s fixing something up where they were wrongly informed. So your trying to do the right thing by [the Child] by letting me have 50/50 but your no longer going to let it happen now that they actually know the truth? Shouldn’t you still be doing the right thing for [the Child]? I don’t get a cent off Centrelink but yes I do think it’s wrong I pay 80% child support and have her a lot more.

    Mother: Sunday 11 August 3.48 pm

    We can trial 50/50 if that’s what you really want. We can start this week coming. But I want it to be Friday-Friday. I don’t want it to be like Wednesday-Wednesday or anything like that it feels like that’s too confusing swapping over during the week          … We will trial it for a month and see how she is and then we will put everything through properly and I will sign another plan giving you 50/50 custody. I want to trial it first.    

    Father: Sunday 11 August 8.43 pm

    I’ve been begging you to change it legally for at least 6 months?? I don’t see why we need to trial it when it’s what’s been happening. And how come you just decide everything im [sic] pretty sure it’s something we should talk out and come to a mutual agreement.

    Mother: Sunday 11 August 8.43 pm

    What do you mean what is there to agree on? Ok well if you don’t want to trial it we won’t do it then? And what is there to talk about you’ve been asking for this for 6 months????

    Father: Monday 12 August 2.56 pm

    Yeh can you please call them today and change it to 50/50, crazy I have 50% care you want me to pay 50% daycare but you won’t change our parental plan!!?

    Mother: Monday 12 August 2.56 pm

    Because she is 50% your child? So why shouldn’t you share 50% of her financial needs weather [sic] you have her 50% of the time or not. What a joke. I told you I’ll trial it take it or leave it. I don’t even want to do 50/50 so if you are going to resist what I want then we just won’t do it haha…

    Mother: Monday 4 November 11.22 am

    They are still doing the review? I’m waiting for them to come back with their decision It’s not like your [sic] paying child support anyway.

    Father: Monday 4 November 11.22 am

    Regardless of the review you know I’ve had way more custody than on paper, it’s taking so long because you can’t tell them the truth! I have evidence for every single day I stated I had her.

    Mother: Monday 4 November 11.22 am

    I haven’t told them anything I told them I have no proof and I’ll just wait for them to make a decision (tears of laughter emoji) call them if you want and ask what’s taking so long…

    Father: Monday 4 November 11.22 am

    You don’t need proof because it IS what happened!? 80% of the time I had her extra days was doing you a favor!! Do you forget going to Sydney and everything else?! It’s taking so long because I haven’t accepted it!! Why not…?

    Mother: Monday 4 November 11.22 am

    Ah I was literally on the phone to them last Thursday and they said nothing to me about anything haha but ok hun. I have her for extra days when you go away for work!!! I[t] works both ways idiot.

    Father: Monday 4 November 11.22 am

    I need it sorted ASAP it does my head in every single day and I still spend every cent I have on [the Child] and pay daycare and you want more because you lie to them about percentage and working… wtf fix it so [the Child] can have quality of life and I can put more finances into her education and after school stuff!!! I’m at work I shouldn’t have to explain the morals and logic to you, yes you have her when I work away therefore I tell them which days I have her!!! Like you should don’t jump to insults it makes you look stupid. All you have to do is say yes he had her those days and it’s over.

    Mother: Monday 4 November 2.08 pm

    Ok, I’ve told you how many times I will do 50/50??? I’m more than happy to do it I don’t mind but I’m not changing it all over until we have set days and until you can 100% pick her up from daycare and drop her off to daycare every day you have her and when she is actually…

    Father: Monday 4 November 2.08 pm

    Ok so the set days are for me to have wed to Friday every week and every second weekend as we’ve done it multiple times in the past and it’s always worked. Once you hold your word and tell them what we’re doing and what has already happened since November last year then I can sort my work out and let them know I have to start late and finish early those days.

    Mother: Monday 4 November 2.08 pm

    Since November last year (9 tears of laughter emojis).

    Father: Monday 4 November 2.08 pm

    That’s what they asked to supply evidence from... Is that a joke?

    Mother: Wednesday 6 November 8.52 am

    Would it not make more sense to do Friday to Friday… If it isn’t working after trialling it for a month we will try your way.

    Father: Wednesday 6 November 8.52 am

    No… wtf, the week starts on Monday so just do Monday to Monday…

    Mother: Wednesday 6 November 8.52 am

    Okay well let me know when it’s all sorted and the we will start the 50/50?

    Father: Wednesday 6 November 8.52 am

    Let me know once you’ve spoken to them please.

    Mother: Wednesday 6 November 4.05 pm

    What?

    Father: Wednesday 6 November 4.05 pm

    How did you go did you get through to them?

    Mother: Wednesday 6 November 4.05 pm

    I told you I wasn’t calling them today.

    Father: Wednesday 6 November 4.05 pm

    Why not? When will you.

    Mother: Wednesday 6 November 4.05 pm

    I’m not spending hours of my time on the phone to them when I’ve got [the Child], it’s too hard I’ll call tomorrow. And I won’t be telling them we’re doing 50/50 when we aren’t doing it. I’m going to ask how it all works and go from there.

    Father: Wednesday 6 November 5.49 pm

    …You want and demand all this stuff but can’t compromise with me even if it benefits our daughter?

    Mother: Wednesday 6 November 5.49 pm

    What exactly isn’t benefiting [the Child]? I’m agreeing to 50/50 so she gets and Even [sic] amount of time with both of us. I’m changing daycares to a much better day care to improve her learning…

    Father: Wednesday 6 November 8.44 pm

    Throwing her into a new daycare with none of her friends for a whole week out of nowhere just because you want to do week on week off when we’re doing wed to fri already really easily? The only change is you’ll have her a weekend when you don’t atm… we haven’t done 80/20 since you decided that it’s all I could have since November yet you can’t even change to 50/50 when that’s practically what we’ve ben doing since November last year what the fuck

    Mother: Wednesday 6 November 8.44 pm

    You’re the one that wanted to do 50/50 like this so why are you complaining about having her now.

    CONCLUSIONS

1. From this, the Tribunal concludes that the father actually had care of the Child basically for the 50%/50% period that he claims and that he spent considerable time and effort asking the mother to advise the Registrar formally that the previously notified 72%/28% percentage (which obviously was referenced in the “parenting plan”) was incorrect and needed to be amended in departmental records. It is also clear that the mother accepts that this 50%/50% split was in operation for at least a significant part of the time under review.

2. The exchanges are poisoned by allegations surrounding levels of child care support payment and elsewhere show sums in question which the mother claims were unpaid by the father.[28] There are also allegations by the father of dishonest conduct on the part of the mother and of her “lyeing” to the Registrar.[29]

   [28] Ibid at 75, 84, 87 and 153.

   [29] Ibid at 167 and 179.

3. These however, are not a matter for determination by the Tribunal – they lie between the parties and the Registrar. Neither party had these allegations put to them for refutation and as per the principle in Browne v Dunn[30] the Tribunal has given them no consideration.

   [30] [1893] 6 R 67.

4. Another point that can be taken from the exchanges is that where they refer to specific days/dates on which the father had care of the Child, these generally comport with the dates claimed by the father in his written diary records before the Tribunal, records in which the AAT1 was inclined to invest some degree of credibility.

5. The first and most obvious point is that if the 50%/50% arrangement had continued in place from November 2018 to date, there would have been no need for the mother to have notified the Registrar of the reinstatement of that arrangement in December 2020/January 2021.

6. In weighing the credibility of the parties, a task made immeasurably more difficult by the non-participation of the father in the hearings and the inherent limitations of using remote technology for their conduct, the Tribunal has placed more weight on the documentary records before it and the records of contacts and advice maintained and provided by the Respondent.

7. As with the AAT1 I am “marginally satisfied” [31] that I should prefer the documentation and the evidence produced by the father over that of the mother.

   [31] AAT1 decision at [21], T-documents at 15.

8. In circumstances such as these, it is enough to work out the actual care of a child that a person has had “based on the number of nights” that the child was in that person’s care pursuant to section 54A of the Act. It is not necessary to have regard to other factors which may provide guidance to determining actual care identified in the Child Support Guide and in Polec and Staker[32] as none are in evidence before the Tribunal.

   [32] Polec and Staker and Anor (2011) 253 FLR 339 at [56].

9. This, together with consideration of all the other evidence available to the Tribunal and that supplied subsequently by the Registrar leads to the following conclusions:

   (a)the percentage of care has not changed since the last determination was made;

   (b)the relevant period remains that which commenced on 9 November 2018; and

   (c)there was a pattern of care for the Child in which reflected that each parent had 50% care of the Child in the relevant care period based upon the number of nights of care without reference to other factors.

10. Since I am satisfied that care took place in line with the existing care determination, there is no need to revoke the existing care determination subject to sections 54F, 54G or 54H of the Act.  

    DECISION

11. The decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 42 (forty -two) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Chris Puplick AM, Senior Member

...................................[sgd].....................................

Associate

Dated: 25 May 2021

Date(s) of hearing:	19 April 2021
Date final submissions received:	7 May 2021
Applicant:	In person
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Mr T Hillyard, Sparke Helmore